Incorrect views about the symbolism of plowing, crows, & other things

The commenter Anne does not discuss symbolism at all—except implicitly, perhaps, in claiming incorrectly that the safe-suit is only a "save-myself" suit. This apparent interpretation of the safe-suit as a symbol of greed (or selfishness) is discussed more in Post 176 earlier.

1. The symbolism of the safe-suit:

Contrary to Anne’s interpretation, Ann the protagonist explicitly believes the safe-suit is important for “human survival” (127), and Loomis actually uses it to travel to the last woman in the last valley; so it must also have a positive symbolic meaning.

Clearly, the suit has a dual nature because it can be used both for selfish purposes and saving humanity. Like much technology, it can be used both beneficially and harmfully. This characteristic of the suit is also suggested by Loomis’s contrasting descriptions of its originally intended purpose and its importance after the war:

“That [radiation-proof suit] was what the government—the army, of course—wanted. So that troops could live on (fight on!) in places that had been atom-bombed” (61).

“The suit, Edward, the suit. Think about it. It may be the last useful thing anybody ever made” (116).

The suit seems to represent the two faces of human ingenuity: human ingenuity in selfishness (i.e., caring only for personal survival) and human ingenuity in helping humanity (i.e., helping the last humans survive).2. The symbolism of Burden Creek:

The name “Burden” seems to have a duality of meaning like the safe-suit. Both meanings are suggested in Millay’s poem “Epitaph for the Race of Man.” In the poem, concern for the survival of the species is described in Darwinian terms as being naturally part of the urge to procreate. Thus, there’s a description of a female dinosaur mating “with the race in mind” (Sonnet II).

On one hand, the name “Burden” (in describing Ann and the valley) represents the responsibility of continuing the struggle of one’s species for survival; on the other hand, in the name of the poisoned creek it represents “Greed,” the selfish tendency that all people bear in addition to (and as part of?) their survival instinct.This greed is said in the poem to overthrow reason, causing unkindness, destructive conflict, and finally the end of the human race:Alas for Man, so stealthily betrayed,Bearing the bad cell in him from the start,Pumping and feeding from his healthy heartThat wild disorder never to be stayedWhen once established, destined to invadeWith angry hordes the true and proper part, Till Reason joggles in the headman’s cart,And Mania spits from every balustrade.Would he had searched his closet for his bane,Where lurked the trusted ancient of his soul,Obsequious Greed, and seen that visage plain;Would he had whittled treason from his sideIn his stout youth and bled his body whole,Then had he died a king, or never died. (Sonnet XVI) 3. Other apparent symbols:

There seems to be quite a lot of symbolism in the story. In addition to plowing, crows, the apple tree, and the name “Burden” (applied to Ann, the valley, and the creek), other symbols perhaps more obvious in meaning seem to include the cave, Ann’s diary, her book of short stories, and the guns.

The cave, where Ann retreats for her own safety, is another symbol of selfish individualism. It is a place of withdrawal from society. The character of the cave as a dark and private inner space also suggests a withdrawing into oneself. On both occasions when Ann flees to the cave, her reason is overcome by extreme fear for her own safety, which in both cases has harmful effects on the other person with whom she has to share the valley. The first time, she allows Loomis to swim in the poisoned creek, which nearly results in his death. The second time, her seclusion and refusal of friendship for 2 weeks likely causes Loomis to become so desperate he resorts to violent force to make her return.

Ann’s diary could be similarly symbolic of self-centeredness, or solipsism. Though diary-writing is generally a self-centered activity, a diary would not be self-centered if the writer’s point of view were balanced with different views expressed by others, or if the writer were a very sympathetic and/or rational person whose judgments of others seemed fair. But Ann’s diary-writing has neither of these characteristics. It includes very little information about Loomis’s views on the most important matters (e.g., his killing of Edward; his attitude about Ann and their relationship; his plans for living with her; his reasons for trying to sleep with her), since Ann seems too shy to talk with him openly about them. Also, although Ann occasionally makes an effort to sympathize with Loomis and judge him fairly, she mainly writes about her fears, and she repeatedly ignores facts or changes her views because of her worries. Thus, Ann’s diary-writing is mainly a solipsistic activity of rationalizing her worries and creating a fictional narrative based on her feelings. Repeatedly, she expresses an unjustified fear, then later assumes the fear is well-founded or interprets Loomis’s actions as justifying it. (I’ll give specific details of all this later, if possible.)

Ann’s book of short stories, which Loomis finally finds in her cave and burns, seems to be Ann’s most cherished possession, making it analogous to Loomis’s safe-suit. After Loomis burns it, Ann writes, “He deliberately ruined the thing I prized most. Stealing the safe-suit will be my revenge” (231). In retaliation, she will take the thing that she thinks Loomis values most. In fact, though, Loomis states that he values Ann more than the safe-suit when he says, “except for ourselves, that suit is the most important thing in the world” (150). Anyway, the book and the safe-suit both seem to be partly symbolic of possessiveness, greed, or selfishness. However, the book also seems to represent imagination, or escapism—the enjoyment of losing oneself in a fictional narrative. So Loomis’s destruction of the book seems in part to express resentment of Ann’s imaginativeness, or of her seeming disconnection from the reality of their circumstances and relationship because of her imaginings.

The guns clearly seem symbolic of self-serving violence, or the use of violent force to serve selfish interests. Both characters have guns and use them to achieve selfish ends (by Loomis to catch Ann; by Ann to escape Loomis). Ann’s use of the gun is often viewed as justifiable self-defense (in contrast with Loomis’s more aggressive purpose); but this is misleading. In a context in which Ann and Loomis represent the last human society, Ann’s refusal of friendship is as harmful to them both as Loomis’s attempts to force her cooperation.It also equally threatens the survival of their species.In the “world” of Burden Valley, their guns correspond with the nuclear and biological weapons that destroyed the wider world’s societies at the start of the story. The latter weapons were doubtless similarly wielded by people who wished to either force others’ cooperation or eliminate a perceived threat.

4. Responding to "evidence": Literary AllusionsPosted July 31, 2011

The commenter Anne does not discuss biblical or literary allusions at all. See Posts 175 and 177 above for a discussion of allusions to Millay's "Epitaph for the Race of Man" and Ecclesiastes.

There are also seemingly important references to Thomas Gray's "Elegy Written in a Country Church-yard" and Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, but I'll discuss these later if possible.

5. The claim that Ann DOESN'T hope to have children or save the human race

Anne: I think it is more likely that her diary entry doesn’t refer to him [Loomis] as ‘the last man alive’ because she doesn’t have this belief. (Post 135)

The protagonist Ann says of her belief before Loomis’s approach, “I was pretty sure I was the only person left in the world” (5). After he enters the valley, she thinks, “This man may be the only man left on earth” (36). Let’s see. If she is pretty sure she’s the last person on earth and then a man appears, isn’t it logical she’d think he could be the last man? And she actually says so, too. Not clear enough?

The commenter Anne's claim that Ann does NOT believe Loomis is the last man directly contradicts the evidence of what Ann says. This belief of Ann's is obviously important, since it is necessary for: (1) her belief that Loomis is the only companion she can ever have; and (2) her belief that they can save humanity by having children.

(See Post 178 above for details on the connection between Ann's desire for children and her hope to save the species.)

6. The claim Loomis is NOT concerned about human survival

Anne’s views concerning the safe-suit: 1. It was a ‘save-myself’ suit, not a ‘save-the-world’ suit. (Post 135) 2. He is calm about the possibility of his own death. However, there is no evidence of any desire to serve the greater good or ‘save the human race’ here. (Post 153)3. ...neither of them would think it was the only method...Edward was probably Mr Loomis’ superior-- and may have had more information (Post 135)4. Mr Loomis must have assumed that there were other methods of escape and survival because he was trying to find survivors at large military bases...incredibly foolish...someone would have challenged Mr Loomis for ownership of the suit! (Post 135)5. Even then, it is not likely that he would have knowledge of all the Pentagon’s projects. (Post 135)6. Neither of them would have had good information on the rescue capabilities of other countries. (Post 135)

The first point is a limited negative interpretation of the suit’s use and symbolism, based partly on the mistaken view that there are probably other survivors (which would certainly lessen the suit’s importance, though it could still be very important for saving people). However, the weight of evidence indicates Ann and Loomis are the last people alive. Ann recognizes the suit is an important tool for “human survival” (127), and she thinks Loomis may have planned to use it that way. And, most importantly, only the suit enables Loomis to reach Ann so that there’s a chance they can be the new Adam and Eve. Thus, to use the commenter Anne’s expressions, the suit is BOTH a “save-myself” AND a “save-the-world” suit. Anne’s second point above only refers to ONE instance and assumes illogically that if Loomis shows no evidence of a concern at ONE time, then he cannot have that concern at all. It seems to me he shows an obvious concern for continuing the human race when he speaks of starting “a colony,” and the concern is also implied by his general concern for saving species.

Anne’s other 4 points are purely supposition. It is unreasonable to make assumptions about the story world based entirely on speculation, unsupported by any evidence in the story itself. Anne says neither Loomis nor Edward would think the suit was the only method of traveling safely through radioactive areas. Really? Where’s the evidence? Loomis explicitly says the suit is the ONLY way. As for what Edward may have known, or what other programs the Pentagon and other countries had, there is absolutely no information about these points. Furthermore, IF Edward “had more information” about other projects for radiation-proof equipment, wouldn’t he have mentioned this knowledge as a reason he should be allowed to use the suit to find his family? Wouldn’t his desperate concern for his family have motivated him enough? Yet he just pleads for Loomis’s sympathy and promises to bring the suit back.

There is no suggestion anywhere that Loomis is mistaken in thinking the suit is the ONLY protection against radiation. Loomis tells Ann that Professor Kymer made a sudden breakthrough and headed a project to build a prototype suit (59-61). There is nothing incredible about one country developing a particular kind of new technology ahead of others, since it happens all the time.

The argument that Loomis’s visit to the Chicago shelter is proof of other safe-suits or similar devices is an example of Anne’s remarkable twisting of information to serve her own wishful thinking. Loomis explains the limits on food and air supplies in all shelters “around the world” to point out that all people in shelters would eventually die, leaving no survivors. But Anne uses this information in a convoluted argument to prove that, despite everything he actually SAYS and MEANS, he “must have assumed there were other methods of escape and survival,” since it would otherwise be foolish to go to an airbase and risk being attacked for the suit. No, Anne. That isn’t even logical. He could have brought fresh supplies to enable people to last longer in a shelter. He might also have been able to return to his lab and design another suit or protective cover to help others travel outside. It’s unclear exactly what his plan was, but finding out if there were other survivors was a worthwhile first step. Ann thinks so, and she assumes Loomis could have helped other survivors somehow (127).

As mentioned before, Anne’s views about Loomis’s use of the suit are also based on the utterly unfounded assumption that he is a deceitful villain who lies to Ann about the suit and the possibility of other survivors as part of a sinister plan he has had all along to exploit her. This interpretation lacks any textual support and actually requires ignoring most evidence of Loomis’s behavior and character. Loomis’s character will be examined in more detail later.

7. The claim there are direct observations of life outside the valley

Anne: Mr Loomis tells Ann that he saw birds circling to the west. This is evidence that there is another habitable place somewhere reasonably close. (Post 136)

You can’t be serious! I can find at least 4 direct observations, 5 statements of certainty, and 12 statements of the probability or possibility that there’s no life outside Burden Valley. But Anne claims all of this evidence can be ignored because ONE TIME Loomis says that he saw birds circling to the west ON ONE OCCASION?

This information is less reliable than everything else said in the story about the world outside the valley because: (1) only one person observed the birds (as opposed to similar reports of deadness from Ann’s parents, Ann, and Loomis); (2) Loomis saw them only one time (not repeatedly over a long period); (3) the sighting is inconsistent with all other observations (including Ann’s observations from hilltops for a year); and (4) it is inconsistent with the assumptions Ann and Loomis usually make (i.e., that there is probably no life anywhere else).

It should also be remembered that Loomis approached the valley from the northeast and from behind Claypole Ridge, which at first blocked his view of the valley. He does not state exactly where he was when he saw the circling birds, so it is possible he only GUESSES they were west of the valley. The birds he saw may have been crows over the valley which he saw from the northeast and mistakenly assumed were further to the west.Ann even describes the crows “wheeling in a circle over the field” (96), so we KNOW they do this sometimes. It is possible Loomis never mentioned the birds to Ann before because he wasn’t sure of what he saw or exactly where they were. He probably mentions them in the end merely as a last desperate hope, since Ann is walking away from the only place where they can be sure life is still possible.

Again, Anne’s interpretation is influenced by her assumption that Loomis has tried to deceive Ann all along about life outside the valley. She would like to view his claim about circling birds as an important inconsistency that reveals his lies. However, there is not enough evidence to support this. Also, as far as inconsistencies are concerned, there are far more of them in Ann’s thinking and behavior—another point for discussion later.

8. The claim there are UNQUALIFIED statements about life outside the valley

Anne: They are not the last two humans. Explicitly and implicitly the text indicates that there is life elsewhere. In addition, O’Brien would expect the readers to use their common sense. (Post 136)

Where is all this evidence? The commenter Anne demands unqualified statements, but she can find only ONE assertion life still exists outside the valley: Loomis’s very dubious claim that he saw birds once (discussed above)!

Explicitly, implicitly, and symbolically, ALL evidence supports the view that Burden Valley is the last habitable place, and Ann and Loomis are the last survivors. The author has designed the novel to suggest this, including by means of the title, the setting, literary allusions, symbolism, and a large number of clear statements by characters. If readers know a bit about the effects of nuclear and biological weapons, it should seem common sense to accept that Burden Valley is the last habitable place—“the world,” as Loomis says should be assumed.

1.Radio broadcasts are NOT proof of other survivors after a year:

The commenter Anne points out that radio broadcasts continued until September, when “the power grid failed”; and the last man was repeating his location--“the act of someone who wants to be rescued, not the last words of the dying.” She then argues, “if there are survivors in the areas most directly affected by the bombings and nerve gas attacks, then it is reasonable to assume that there will be survivors elsewhere.”

None of this is evidence others survive over a year after the war. Anne’s interpretation is again based on misinterpretation and unsupported assumptions.

Yes, the last broadcast seems to have been in September (Ann emphasizes “about”) (4), and the radio station may have been in the open (not in a shelter) “somewhere near Boston” (6). But Anne’s assumption that the power grid failed then is unfounded and ridiculous. The power grid would have failed immediately or soon after the war, since it couldn’t have been kept operational anywhere given the extent of destruction and contamination.When the last broadcaster said “there wasn’t any more power” (6), he must have meant from a gas-powered emergency generator. We know power in Burden Valley failed either during the week of the war or right after it, since Ann describes going for water with her brother Joseph and finding the creek poisoned (16-17). When electricity failed, so did the electric pump that supplied water to the house. Maybe this happened at the same time the phones went dead right after the war (2).

The commenter Anne focuses on the last broadcaster’s repetition of his location, as if his hope for rescue proves rescuers existed—another illogical assumption. There is no evidence anywhere in the story of rescuers actually existing, so it’s unreasonable to assume the broadcaster’s appeals show anything except desperate hope! Near the end, he also said “there were only a few people left where he was and not much food” (6); and he pleaded “that men should act with dignity in the face of death” (6). It is quite clear that the survivors there were dwindling and faced imminent death (from starvation, radiation sickness, and maybe conflict). The fact there were a few dying survivors near Boston 5 months after the war ONLY suggests there MAY have been other small scattered groups of dying survivors. It does NOT suggest conditions were livable in some places or that anyone else survives a year after the war!

Anne is also WRONG to assume Boston was one of the areas most directly affected by bombs. Based on Loomis’s talk in nightmares, the protagonist reports “they had real exploding H-bombs in that area, not just drifting fallout” (115); but Ithaca is about 300 miles west of Boston, where the last radio broadcaster was. In contrast, Burden Valley was over 100 miles from the nearest bombs (8), but they still killed everything around the valley almost instantly. As far as we know, bombs were closer to the valley than to Boston but still lethal even 100 miles away.

Unfortunately, it seems there isn't enough precise information in the story about the types of bombs, their distribution, their detonation heights, and specific effects everywhere on Earth—at least, not enough to prevent readers from imagining an innocuous detail (e.g., a broadcaster giving his location) outweighs over 20 clear statements of observations, certainties, and probabilities.

2. Edward and Loomis did NOT believe people could survive outside without a safe-suit!

Referring to my earlier claim (Post 52) that “Edward and Loomis believed they were the last survivors and they had the only means of now travelling safely...,” Anne asserts, “These comments are hyperbole and aren’t supported by the text.”

Saying that Edward and Loomis were the last survivors was a mistake, not hyperbole. I’d forgotten about the radio broadcaster and people in shelters, probably because they all die later anyway. The belief they had the ONLY means of traveling outside safely is accurate. Ann sums up, “They knew the air outside was poisonous with radioactivity, and they had in their laboratory the only suit in the world that would protect against it” (115). Loomis says similar things repeatedly about the suit, and Edward never contradicted this idea even though he was desperate to find his family. Moreover, even Ann characterizes Edward’s desire to look for his family as “a wild hope that some people might have survived...in a cellar or a shelter” (115). The commenter Anne focuses on the last part of the sentence, the idea people "might be alive in a cellar or a shelter,” ignoring that this possibility is described as “a wild hope.”

Radio broadcasts that continued for a while and then stopped are like birds that maybe circled once and then disappeared. They are not reliable evidence of a continued presence. Ann states clearly that when the last station went off the air, she knew she’d never see anyone else and she was “pretty sure she was the only person left in the world” (5). Regarding birds, she hasn’t seen any sign of life in the surrounding lands for over a year (9), and she believes all birds except crows “flew out into the deadness and died” (29).

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.